Posted On: 02/11/2015 3:19:54 PM
Post# of 374
theiceman13 Wednesday, 02/11/15 03:17:21 PM
Re: kbrod1 post# 279845
Post # of 279875
To show you what a POS company you are dealing with read this-
The following message was sent to IR. NTEK has blocked my email address......... I AM A SHAREHOLDER... David just messed with the wrong person.... He won't enjoy my letter going to the SEC and the state of nv.
There is now a major debate going on regarding the number/% of hvel shares holders of ntek shares will receive. I read that it was clearly stated that whatever percentage of ntek you owned that you would receive that equivalent percentage in hvel. Now there are people saying they have direct communication from you saying that isn't the case.
Please clarify.
Thank you
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
DWONG@ntek.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain ntek.com by comms3.ntek.com. [64.62.248.153].
The error that the other server returned was:
553 5.1.8 Sender address rejected by address filter
Re: kbrod1 post# 279845
Post # of 279875
To show you what a POS company you are dealing with read this-
The following message was sent to IR. NTEK has blocked my email address......... I AM A SHAREHOLDER... David just messed with the wrong person.... He won't enjoy my letter going to the SEC and the state of nv.
There is now a major debate going on regarding the number/% of hvel shares holders of ntek shares will receive. I read that it was clearly stated that whatever percentage of ntek you owned that you would receive that equivalent percentage in hvel. Now there are people saying they have direct communication from you saying that isn't the case.
Please clarify.
Thank you
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
DWONG@ntek.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain ntek.com by comms3.ntek.com. [64.62.248.153].
The error that the other server returned was:
553 5.1.8 Sender address rejected by address filter
(0)
(0)
